On 03/18/10 10:45 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> On 03/18/10 08:58 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>
>>> Garrett D'Amore - sun microsystems wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Compatibility between ksh93 built in utility implementation and GNU
>>>> coreutils implementation:
>>>> Should a future ARC case will add new features to the GNU coreutils
>>>> utilities the project team will update the corresponding ksh93 built
>>>> in utility. Should this not be possible the ksh93 project team will
>>>> remove the mapping.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So this constrains all future GNU coreutils update cases to coordinate
>>> with the ksh93 builtins, right? Have those responsible for the GNU
>>> coreutils agreed to this constraint? Should this be expressed as an
>>> ARC contract for cross-consolidation agreement of Volatile interfaces?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The ksh93 versions adhere to the public interfaces from the GNU
>> versions. If they change the semantics, then it will require some extra
>> work, but I'm not sure that a contract properly captures this.
>>
> Even just having a note added to the SFW metadata file would be better
> than doing nothing, which goes back to the original question of whether
> those responsible for the GNU coreutils in SFW have agreed to this or
> even been made aware of it?
>
I doubt they have been formally notified. If they have, I'm unaware of it.
I'm actually of the opinion that this entire case, along with the
/usr/gnu situation, is a mess, and we should go back to the drawing
board (so to speak) and address the more significant concerns that are
the root cause for this case (in particular the /usr/gnu replacements)
to come up.
The problem is, I'm not sure there is any desire on anyone doing the
actual work to revisit the overall architecture surrounding user
environments. Even if it is desperately needed.
-- Garrett
